Cited by

“The denial of the right to counsel is a structural error that does not require a showing of prejudice to obtain reversal.” (quotations omitted).

8 waive his right to counsel.” State v. Maddox

Although criminal defendants enjoy the right to counsel at “critical stages of the proceedings,” (quotation omitted), the right to counsel extends only “for one review of a criminal conviction, whether by direct appeal or a first review by postconviction proceeding,” (quotations omitted).

“A defendant may waive his right to counsel if the defendant ’s waiver is knowing, voluntary and intelligent.” State v. Maddox , (quotation omitted) .

-95 (Minn. 2019) (reasoning that the supreme court has held that the right to counsel “applies at all critical stages of a criminal prosecution” (quotation omitted)); 146 (Minn. App. 2013) (citing first Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349, 358 (1977); aff’d, ) (reasoning that the United States Supreme Court has recognized sentencing as a critical stage in a criminal proceeding and 7 ho

(“A defendant is entitled to a new trial when the absence of a record of a defendant’s waiver of counsel renders it impossible to determine upon appellate review whether a waiver was knowing and intelligent.” (quotations omitted)).

3 (2018), and has a corresponding right to be represented by counsel at that hearing

that does not require a showing of prejudice to obtain reversal.” State v. Maddox , (quotations omitted).

The right to trial counsel extends into every critical stage of the proceeding, which are those trial-like confrontations where an attorney could assist the defendant with legal problems or in “meeting [her] adversary.” State v. Maddox , (quoting Rothgery v. Gillespie County, 554 U.S. 191, 212 n.16, 128 S. Ct. 2578, 2591 n.16 (2008)).

at 336; see also State v. Maddox , 46 (Minn. 2 The record on appeal is unclear as to the facts relied upon by the district court to cancel the restitution hearing.

See Gardner v. Florida , 430 U.S. 349, 358, 97 S. Ct. 1197, 1205 (1977); -46 (Minn. App. 2013).

(citing Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349, 358, 97 S. Ct. 1197, 1205 (1977)).

(applying rule 5.04 to a restitution hearing); (applying rule 5.04 to a probation -revocation hearing).

(d 136, 144 n.6 (Minn. 2012)); Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349, 358, 97 S. Ct. 1197, 1205 (1977).

“[A] defendant who fails to timely challenge restitution under section 611A.045, subdivision 3(b), may not challenge restitution in a postconviction-relief petition.”

Andersen’s in which the court of appeals held that a defendant has the right to counsel at a restitution hearing.

(“[A] defendant who fails to timely challenge restitution under section 611A.045, subdivision 3(b), may not challenge restitution in a postconviction-relief petition.”).

Despite the untimeliness, appellant argues that “it was erroneous for the district court to find that [appellant’s] request for an evidentiary hearing was untimely, given that it failed to appoint counsel for [appellant] at this crucial stage of sentencing.” While it is true that there is a right to counsel at a contested restitution hearing, appellant cites no authority that extends this right to the district court’s issuance of an order awarding restitution.